Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Hindustan RAtna (JV)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

FAO Nos. 414 & 420 of 2014

Reserved on: 3.11.2022

Date of decision : 18.11.2022. 1. FAO No. 414 of 2014 Pushpinder Singh @ Monu ...Appellant

Versus Rajesh Mehta & others

...Respondents 2. FAO No. 420 of 2014

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. …Appellant

Versus

Pushpinder Singh @ Monu & others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for

the appellant in FAO No. 414 of

2014 and for respondent No.1 in

FAO No. 420 of 2014.

For the respondent : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Sr.

Advocate for the appellant in FAO

No. 420 of 2014 and for respondent

No.3 in FAO No. 414 of 2014.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge:

Both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment as these arise from same Award dated 20.4.2014,

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the

judgment?

-2-

passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. in MACC No. 1-S/2 of 2012 and also involve identical questions of law and facts. 2.

FAO No. 414 of 2014 has been filed by the claimant for enhancing of Award amount, whereas FAO No. 420 of 2014 has been filed by insurer, assailing the quantum of compensation to be on higher side. 3.

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of these appeals are that claimant Pushpinder Singh alias Monu on 30.6.2006, while riding motorcycle was hit by a Car bearing Registration No. CH-03Y-7187, and suffered grievous injuries resulting in 50% disability. The offending car was owned by respondent No.1(for short, ‘the owner’) and driven by respondent No.2 (for short, ‘the driver’) in FAO No. 414 of 2014. 4.

Claimant preferred claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short, ‘the Act’) before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) with the allegation that claimant had suffered grievous injuries and consequent disability due to rash and negligent driving by the driver. It was alleged that claimant at the time of accident was working at a salary of Rs. 9000/- per month as sales executive with “Smooth Waves” and was also being paid Rs. 1200/- per month as incentive. It was further alleged that due to the

-3-

disability suffered by the claimant, he was not in a position to work anymore. 5.

Learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition of claimant and awarded a sum of Rs. 19,86,016/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the awarded amount. Insurer was burdened with liability to pay the compensation. Learned Tribunal awarded the compensation to claimant under various heads as under: - “Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)” (i) Expenses relating to treatment hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. Rs. 6,16,016/- (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

Rs. Nil.

Rs. 10,20,000/- (iii) “Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)”

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. Rs. 1,00,000/- (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). Rs. 1,00,000/- (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). Rs. 50,000/- (vii) Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs. 1,00,000/-

-4-

The claimant has assailed the aforesaid award on the grounds that the same is on lesser side, whereas, insurer has assailed the same being excessive. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8.

Learned Tribunal assessed the income of claimant at Rs. 9000/- per month. Considering the 50% disability of claimant, loss of income was assessed at Rs. 4500/- per month. Learned Tribunal added Rs. 500/- per month on account of future prospects and thus assessing loss of income at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month and by applying a multiplier of 17, a sum of Rs. 10,20,000/- was awarded to the claimant as loss of future earnings. 9.

It has been contended on behalf of the insurer that the assessment of income of claimant at the rate of Rs. 9000/- per month by learned Tribunal is without any legal basis. It is submitted that there was no cogent and reliable evidence to prove the income of claimant on such a higher side. Challenge has been made to document Ext. PW-5/A, the salary certificate of claimant, on the ground that it was not proved in accordance with law. As per insurer, PW-5 was not a person, who had issued the certificate Ext. PW-5/A and said witness was also

-5-

not authorized to depose on behalf of the organization, which allegedly had employed the claimant. 10.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the claimant in his statement on oath before Court had categorically submitted his income to be Rs. 9000/- per month from the salary received from his employer and no challenge had been made on behalf of the insurer or insured to such part of the statement, as such, the version so rendered by the claimant was deemed to have been admitted and now the insurer cannot turn around to assail the quantum of income of the claimant. Reliance has been placed on following extract from the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmibai vs Bhagwantbuva reported in 2013 (4) SCC 97 40. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination-in-chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of

-6-

his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See Khem Chand v. State of H.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 7 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 212 : AIR 1994 SC 226] , State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh [(1998) 3 SCC 561 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 850 : AIR 1998 SC 1328] , Rajinder Parshad v. Darshana Devi [(2001) 7 SCC 69 : AIR 2001 SC 3207] and Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2005) 9 SCC 283 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1230 : AIR 2005 SC 1096] .) 11.

Record reveals that the claimant had deposed that he was being paid Rs. 9000/- per month as salary and his such version has remained totally unrebutted. Neither the insurer had laid any challenge to such version of claimant during his cross-examination nor any evidence was lead in rebuttal. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that a person working as sales executive in 2006 could not earn salary of Rs. 9000/- per month. In the light of the unrebutted statement of claimant and there being no other evidence to the contrary, even if document Ext. PW-5/A is ignored, the assessment drawn by learned Tribunal as regards monthly income of claimant cannot be said to be unjustified or illegal. Learned Tribunal has taken a view which is possible and does not

-7-

require any interference in absence of any evidence to the contrary. 12.

It has been asserted on behalf of the claimant that learned Tribunal has erred in not adding component of incentive to monthly income of the claimant. Reliance has been placed on judgments passed by this Court and reported in 2012 (2) HLR 969 and 2016 (1) Shimla Law Cases 64. Such contention of claimant has been resisted by insurer by alleging that the judgments relied upon by claimant were not applicable in the facts of the instant case as this Court had considered the addition of daily allowance to an employee paid by employer, whereas in the instant case, the claimant claimed benefit of addition of incentive to his income. 13.

Again, referring to the statement of PW-1 claimant, the version given by him with respect to receipt of incentive at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month has remained unrebutted and cannot be disbelieved. Thus, the fact remains that claimant was getting incentive of Rs. 1200/- in addition to his salary. It being so, no reason can be found to disentitle the claimant from benefit of such monthly payment for the purpose of assessment of loss of income by drawing distinction between payment made to an employee as daily allowance and incentive. Both are pecuniary benefits. Claimant has been denied the benefit of

-8-

receipt of incentive on account of his inability to work as a result of disability suffered by him. In considered view of this Court, learned Tribunal erred in not adding the component of incentive to monthly income of claimant. 14.

It has also been contended on behalf of the claimant that the assessment of Rs. 500/- per month as income on account of future prospects is totally unreasonable. Claimant was only twenty years of age and his potential was evident from the monthly income, he was able to generate at such young age and his future prospects could not be restricted to just about 5% of the income. 15.

There is sufficient force in the arguments raised on behalf of claimant. Merely because claimant was less educated does not mean that he had no potential to earn. Education has no direct nexus with earning capacity of a person. There are many avocations where a person can earn a lot without even being educated. Applying this principle, the assessment of loss of future prospects at the rate of 5% by learned Tribunal is highly unjustified. In Pappu Deo Yadav Vs Naresh Kumar reported in AIR 2020 SC 4424 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “3. While assessing loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal took the appellant’s income to be Rs. 8000

-9-

per month, and added 50% towards future prospects. At the time of the accident, the appellant was only 20 years of age. Therefore, a multiplier of 18 was applied. The physical disability was assessed to be 45%, by the Tribunal. The High Court, to which the claimant appealed (and the insurer cross appealed), revised this head of compensation by doing away with the addition of 50% towards future prospects, and reassessed the compensation for loss of earning capacity as Rs. 7,77,600 (Rs.8000 x 12 x 45% x 18). The total compensation was reassessed by the High Court to be Rs.14,36,600, after enhancing the compensation for disfigurement, diet, attendant and conveyance, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, and pain and suffering. Further, an interest of 9% per annum was imposed. In reducing the amount awarded for loss of future prospects, the High Court noticed this court’s judgments in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. and Jagdish v. Mohan & Ors both by three-judge benches of this court. 4. The appellant argues that the impugned judgment is in material error, in misreading this court’s judgments in Pranay Sethi & Ors which was later Jagdish by a three judge Bench, which had ruled that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals, and in case of self- employed persons an addition of 40% of established income should be made where the age

-10-

of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. It was urged that the decision in Anant s/o of Sidheshwar Dukre v. Pratap s/o Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Anr. relied on by the High Court, did not assess future prospects. However, that per se did not preclude claims by persons incurring permanent disablement as a consequence of motor accidents, from seeking such heads of compensation. It is urged that the High Court misread and created a distinct category of cases where addition in income towards "future prospects" can only be given in case of death, and not for injury, which cannot be the intention of this court as no such observation is made. It was argued that the High Court should have reassessed and not reduced 'the loss of future earning capacity' of the appellant from Rs. 11,66,400/- (determined by the tribunal) to Rs. 7,77,600/- on the wrongly depressed income of Rs. 8000/-. Learned counsel submitted that the assessment of monthly income should have been Rs.12,000/- and not Rs.8,000/. It was submitted that the courts below ignored the fact that in 2012, persons earning Rs.12, 000/- per month did not have to file income tax returns or pay tax. The High Court further erred in assessment of physical permanent disability of injured as 45%, even though it was 100%. 7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income,

-11-

amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim’s death. 10. The recent decision in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, involved an accident victim who underwent surgery for hemiplegia. According to the treating medic, he could not work as a labourer or perform any agricultural work, or work as a driver (as he was wont to); the assessment of his disability was at 75%, and of a permanent nature. The court held that: “5.2. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the employer of the appellant, we accept that the income of the appellant was Rs 10,000 p.m. at

-12-

the time of the accident, for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to him.

5.1. The appellant has however, produced an affidavit by his employer in this Court. As per the said affidavit, the appellant was earning Rs 10,000 p.m. at the time of the accident.

5.3. Taking the income of the appellant as Rs 10,000 p.m., with future prospects @ 50% as awarded by the High Court, the total income of the appellant would come to Rs 15,000 p.m.

5.4. The appellant was 23 years old at the time when the accident occurred. Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of future earnings suffered by the appellant would work out to Rs 15,000 × 12 × 18 = Rs 32,40,000

5.7. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (2012) 12 SCC 274, this Court held that: “10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have 15 (2019) 7 SCC 217 16 Weakness of one half of the body on the left side; in this case, caused by an

-13-

accident. 17 at page 279, para 10 11 earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broadbased. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of “just compensation” should be inhered.”

5.9. In the present case, it is an admitted position that it is not possible for the appellant to get employed as a driver, or do any kind of manual labour, or engage in any agricultural operations whatsoever, for his sustenance. In such circumstances, the High Court has rightly assessed the appellant's functional disability at 100% insofar as his loss of earning capacity is concerned. The appellant is, therefore, awarded Rs 32,40,000 towards loss of earning capacity.” 11. Yet later and more recently in an accident case, which tragically left in its wake a young girl in a life- long state of paraplegia, this court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, 18 reiterated that in addition to loss of earnings, compensation for future prospects too could be factored in, and observed that:

-14-

“14. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, (1979) 4 SCC 365 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 996 : 1980 ACJ 55] , this Court held : (SCC p. 366, para 2)

“2. … the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.” 15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] , dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held thus : (SCC p. 556, para 9)

“9. Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include

-15-

expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.”

“6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

-16-

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities

-17-

(and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.” 17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638] , this Court held as follows : (SCC p. 276, para 2)

“2. … There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.” Loss of earnings 20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have

-18-

worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable 14 to a skilled workman is Rs 4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs 14,66,000.” 12. In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, @ 40% (following the Pranay Sethi principle).”

16.

Keeping in view the aforesaid exposition in mind, the claimant in instant case is also held entitled to loss of future prospects to the tune of 40% of his income keeping in view his age and potential to earn.

-19-

17.

The insurer has contended that as per medical evidence on record, claimant had suffered partial paralysis and as such, the assessment of disability to the tune of 50% on whole body is unreasonable. On the other hand, the contention on behalf of the claimant is that the functional disability of claimant was much more than 50% as he was not able to work. 18.

Considering the rival contentions of the insurer and the claimant and the material on record, the findings recorded by learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. The disability of claimant was proved by PW-4 Dr. Manoj to be 50% of whole body and his statement in that regard has remained unchallenged. As regards functional disability, the contention raised on behalf of the claimant deserves rejection as no specific evidence has been brought on record in that regard. PW-4 has not stated anything regarding functional disability of claimant. Merely, on the statement of claimant in this behalf, no hypothesis can be drawn. 19.

In light of what has been held above, the claimant is held entitled to loss of income as under: i) Monthly income 9000+1200= 10,200-50% (as the disability of claimant is assessed at 50% towards whole body)=5,100/-.

ii) 40% of 5,100/- towards loss of future prospects= 2040/-. Total loss of income per month Rs. 7140/-

-20-

20.

Learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 while assessing the loss of future income, which as per mandate of Sarla Verma vs DTC reported in (2009) 6 SCC 721 should have been of 18. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the head loss of future income as under: Rs. 7140 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 15,42,240/- 21.

Learned counsel for the insurer raised another objection that learned Tribunal had erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 72,000/- to the claimant on account of attendant charges. He contended that there was no evidence to this effect. The attendant who allegedly attended upon the claimant was not examined. Such contention of insurer deserves to be rejected for the reason that the Tribunal was not precluded from making some amount of guess work while awarding the compensation under beneficial legislation like Motor Vehicles Act. With the nature of injury and disability suffered by the claimant his claim for amount paid to an attendant cannot be termed to be unjustified.

21.

Additionally, the non-pecuniary damages awarded to claimant have been assailed by both the parties. As per claimant, they are on lower side, whereas as per insurer they are on higher side. Learned counsel for the claimant has

-21-

placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal Nos. 2811-2812 of 2020 titled Erudhya Priya vs. State Express transport Corporation Ltd reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 601 in which, the damages on account of loss of marriage prospects were awarded at Rs. 5,00,000/-. Claimant, as noticed above, was only twenty years of age and was unmarried. He has suffered partial paralysis. There is no evidence that he had recovered or his disability was cured. Keeping in view the nature of disability suffered by claimant, it can easily be presumed that his marriage prospects could even be marred completely. There is no evidence that the claimant had married. In view of these observations, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded to the claimant towards loss of marriage prospects is definitely at lower side and needs to be enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- keeping in view the exposition of law in Erudhaya Priya (supra). The award of non-pecuniary damages under other heads needs no interference. 22.

Learned counsel for the insurer also drew attention of the Court towards miscalculation made by learned Tribunal while assessing the expenses of treatment. He by unfolding the contents of document Ext. PW-1/E1 to Ext. PW-1/E3 revealed that these do not pertain to different transactions but were part of the same treatment received by claimant in the hospital and

-22-

the total expenses were Rs. 1,30,170/-. The contention so raised on behalf of the insurer deserves to be upheld. Learned Tribunal has erred in calculating the amount as Rs. 5,34,016/- whereas it was only a sum of Rs. 1,30,170/-. These, however, were the charges paid to the hospital. Petitioner must have remained on medication during the post hospitalization period and by taking such fact into consideration the expenses on it can be conservatively estimated at Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to Rs. 1,80,170/- as treatment charges. 23.

The insurer and claimant have also made diverse arguments with regard to award on interest. Claimant has supported the interest at the rate of 9% awarded by learned Tribunal, whereas the insurer has prayed for reducing the same to 6.5% by placing reliance on judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2020 (4) SCC 143. To the contrary, learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2018 (3) SCC 18 and Civil Appeal No. 6194 of 2022. The award of interest depends on fact situation of each case. The Motor Vehicles Act only provides for award of interest and not its rate. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% which appears to be reasonable keeping in view the long life which the

-23-

claimant has to spend with the disability. The compensation cannot always bring an end to the agony of disabled victim. The scar left on his soul remains uncompensated. The beneficial legislation like Motor Vehicles Act is to be interpreted in a manner so as to achieve maximum toward its object. 24.

In light of above discussion, both the Appeals are disposed of by modifying the award dated 20.4.2014, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. in MACC No. 1-S/2 of 2012. The claimant is held entitled to following amount to be paid by insurer:-

Pecuniary damages: (i) Expenses relating to treatment hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. Rs. 1,80,170/- + Rs. 72,000/- (attendant charges) = 2,52,170/- (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (c) Loss of earning during the period of treatment (d) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

Rs. Nil.

Rs. 15,42,240/- (iii) “Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)”

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. Rs. 1,00,000/- (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). Rs. 5,00,000/- (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). Rs. 50,000/- (vii) Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs. 1,00,000/-

TOTAL

Rs.25,44,410/-

-24-

In addition, claimant will also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid amount from the date of filing of petition till actual payment or deposit, whichever is earlier.

All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(Satyen Vaidya) 18th November, 2022

Judge (kck)